Having Your Voice Heard

[sheldonshouldretire]

The only reason the discussions of format splitting comes up is because of the level of contempt Sheldon seems to show for combo players. We don't want a cEDH format we just want the RC to acknowledge, monitor, and maintain the power ceiling of the format in a way comparable to how Wizards handles the "official formats". What that means in actual execution is obviously open to debate but all the spikes want is a level ceiling for players playing at their local store when they're playing for cash/packs.

[Styrofoam]

I will do my best to respond, as both casual EDH player, and someone who plays in cEDH pods, with respect, and do my best to avoid snarky and sarcastic responses as would be par for the course in most of my normal life. I want to address the points that Sheldon made in his most recent article posted on SCG point by point.

Commander is for fun. It's a socially interactive, multiplayer Magic: the Gathering format full of wild interactions and epic plays, specifically designed as an alternative to tournament Magic. As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle, Commander focuses on a resonant experience. Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved--this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere. At the end of an ideal Commander game, someone will have won, but all participants will have had the opportunity to express themselves through their deck building and game play. (emphasis Sheldon’s)

First thing I would like to address is the first bolded item in the philosophy document. I would hope that Commander is for fun. Most games are for fun, and if you’re not having fun playing a game, you probably ought not play it anymore, but we are about to run into a problem with this philosophy and the Rules Committee (hereafter shortened to RC) and how they have a very narrow definition of what can constitute as fun specifically in games of commander.

The next bolded line is “designed as an alternative to tournament magic” is where we start to run afoul of what Sheldon and the RC have designated as “magic for not-fun” tournament magic. I have on numerous occasions played in GPs, Star City opens, and done both quite well, and also quite poorly. But I wouldn’t spend $60 and a full weekend of my time playing in the tournament if it weren’t fun. From the start you give a false dilemma, saying it’s either competitive, or its fun. It can’t be both. This will come into play later on, but the philosophy is broken at the top.

“Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract” Maybe that is how it started for you, but this format has grown far beyond craw wurms, and Serra Angels. Tens of thousands of players are playing this format, all with equally valid ideas of what their games should look like. I understand why you created the format, but sometimes our creations grow and evolve out of their initial form, and to continue to squeeze everyone into your idea of what Commander must be, is isolating to the people who don’t agree with your philosophy, or your idea of what “real commander” is. I will also talk a little more about the social contract a bit later.

I'm sure the first thing you noticed is the bold-faced text. If you just jump between all of them in the document, you'll get the Commander elevator pitch. They're the absolutely critical points. It's important that this paragraph is first, because it's the answer to "What is Commander and why does it exist?" The first thing we did when we wrote the document was ask ourselves that very question,

We get that Commander is different. Hell, we intended for Commander to be different, so the rules which might apply to other formats don't necessarily do so here. The biggest difference is that it's the only format with a philosophy. I think that bears repeating. It's the only format with a philosophy. We spell out what we're hoping to create with the format, and every single one of those words matters.

Alright. You say that the bolded lines were super critical. Okay, i’ve mentioned them already, and the issues with them. But you seem hung up on the fact that “commander has a philosophy” as if that is important. It is not. Perhaps it was at one point in time, to ensure that the format grew up and took on a life of its own. You did the hard work already by creating the philosophy for your own playgroup when inventing the format. But like I mentioned before, the format grew its legs and moved on from that. You’re again isolating people who enjoy the format for different reasons other than your stated philosophy (whether that be reasons in addition to, or opposed to it)

The rules of Commander are designed to maximize these experiences within a game of Magic. The addition of a commander, larger life total, and deck building restrictions emphasize the format's flavor; they increase deck variance and add more opportunities for participation and expression.

Good. I think that we can agree that the creativity sparked by deck building restrictions, the addition of a commander is largely what drew most of us to the format. By and large, this is successful, and, with the exception of a higher starting life total basically cutting aggressive strategies out at the legs, format diversity is something that EDH players and cEDH alike value.

While still being recognizable as Magic, there are additional pieces to Commander which tell a story, offering you the opportunity to bring your Dune-themed deck or Pirate tribal and have it play. Many players see a game of Magic—and especially a Magic tournament—as a math puzzle to be solved. Commander adds a creative element on top of that which partners with the math to create something unlike any other experience.

No one wants to stop these types of playstyles. I myself have a mono-white bird tribal deck with Soraya the falconer, despite there being better outlets for bird tribal, or mono white decks. The issue being taken is that when the theme of the deck is “Win against 3 other people as fast and consistently as possible” is seen as a detriment to the format, that our takes on the format are somehow invalid, or less valid than tribal pirates or dune-themed decks.

the goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level, which are decisions best left to individual play groups. The ban list seeks to demonstrate which cards threaten the positive player experience at the core of the format or prevent players from reasonable self-expression. The primary focus of the list is on cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others' opportunities.

Oh man, where do I start here? Look, I know you value your philosophy, but this is the nature of the beast here. We are playing a game that by your own admission, has been progressing towards infinite combos, and ways to close out a game, and this isn’t a new trend. Going back to your pirate tribal deck example, for the most part, the pilot is going to want to actually feel like playing the deck is capable of actually playing magic, and not just casting Admiral Becket Brass a few times and feel like they did their thing. Not being competitive (relative to your playgroup) will always end up with power creep. That said, “power level” of cards is a direct attack on the philosophy of your format. Cards like Flash, while not a current “threat” to the format, are always just lurking there threatening to destroy the ability for people to enjoy the format in the way they want to enjoy them, and for 10-15% of the people who are currently playing this format, they are already having their enjoyment diminished.


I understand your stance is not to regulate competitive play. But your explanation doesn’t actually work anymore. Commander as a format has grown out of one person’s play group and is a global magic format. It is played at GPs, opens, LGSs and Kitchen Tables. Your kitchen table group may ban flash at your tables, but you go to a Magic Fest to trade, and meet new people and play commander, and suddenly, someone you don’t know casts flash. Hey, it’s TECHNICALLY legal, right? The Social contract only works when people agree that it works. Is it the goal of the RC to have every game of commander with strangers to start “Okay, I personally think that Flash should be banned, so, no Flash.” “Okay, but I don’t like 2 card infinite combos. So none of those” and then see if anyone has any decks that meet all the qualifications stated ahead of time? This is cumbersome and not viable. Rule 0 is a cuddly feel good rule, but it is simply not viable as a way to regulate enjoyment at the commander tables. This falls to you, the RC, to help foster the types of environment that makes sure people enjoy the format.

We talk a good deal about our core demographic, the people for whom the philosophy document does resonate, the audience we're trying to reach.

So, what about the other people who don’t match up to you? Why does their play experience matter less? Imagine, that if someone who governed say, a small city, ignored 15% of its citizens because they weren’t who they really targeted? What if they were made to feel like their voices or their opinions on the city were not valid? How would they feel, especially if listening to them didn’t affect the other 85% at all?

We get that Flash/Hulk is a cEDH staple and easy/early win condition. The core demographic isn't playing it.

Yep. This is my point. They aren’t playing flash/Hulk, so, the banning of flash wouldn’t affect them. They’d scratch their heads and say “uh..okay i guess. That’s weird.” and then continue to play their bird tribal decks and the world would go on spinning. Whereas, you’d have made the game far more enjoyable for 10-15% of the players who want to have fun playing the game in a way that they enjoy, but can’t because the RC doesn’t see them as valid. Just the idea of a “core demographic” is pretty insulting to those of us who enjoy playing commander in a way that you yourself don’t.

That doesn't mean the RC focuses on all of them equally or that we believe equal representation of all of them is what Commander wants to do, which is a departure from other formats.

This is another sentence that basically reads “Play what you want, but just know that we don’t really want you to play it in commander.”

Some people think that we on the RC don't like competitive Magic. We love competitive Magic. Everyone on the RC has made their bones in competitive Magic. It's just not what we're doing here. We're not taking a stand against any particular style; we're focusing on the things that we want the format to do. We're carving out an underserved space, giving voice to a contingent of people whose voices get drowned out elsewhere. There are already a bunch of great competitive Magic formats to play. Commander doesn't want to be one of them—not because they don't have value, but because there's nothing else like it.

I’m baffled by the way you seem to define the idea of “competitive” as the opposite of “fun” You continuously mention things to be left up for local play groups, and THIS paragraph is 100% the types of things that should be left up to playgroups. It should be about “HOW do we as a group want to have fun” But the idea of a universal idea of what fun must be, to enjoy the rules of commander is pretty unrealistic. Your resistance to change reminds me of protesters protesting integration. Commander is powering up. More and more people who enjoy the competition aspect of a GAME, combined with the unique limitations built into the commander are entering the format, and playing cards that are just getting more and more powerful, and you’ll have to accept it.

Commander is designed to be a malleable format. We encourage groups to use the rules and the ban list as a baseline to optimize their own experience. This is not license for an individual to force their vision onto a play group

Unless that individual (or in this case group of individuals) is you. (the RC)

players to discuss their goals and how the rules might be adjusted to suit those goals.

As mentioned before, with as big as Commander has gotten, this is just not logistically possible when playing with new people that you will likely never see again. People all have different definitions of what is fun to them, and it won’t fit into the neatly packaged box you’re trying to force it into.

The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don't.

We don’t want a broken format. We want a format that is diverse, and fun, and if we choose, can be played competitively. If we choose, it can be played non-competitively. But we want the option, without having our fun ruined by certain cards that we have over and over identified as problematic, but aren’t worth listening to, because we aren’t the Core demographic. The issue, is that playing competitively means that we are doing things that are within the written rules of the game that lets us have the best chance at winning. Right now, that is Flash/Hulk.

We can't stop you from playing any of the multitude of busted combos which are available.

Yes you can. You don’t.

What we can do is encourage you to think about the experiences of the players around you and guide you toward an idea, like those busted combos are okay on Turn 10 but not so much on Turn 3.

You’re either ignoring the point on purpose, or, you are blind to it. The combos on turn 3 is how some people express themselves, and have fun playing. They just want a diverse format to do this, and have been ignored.

We can also encourage an environment in which it's okay for players to say "No, I'd prefer to not play a particular way." Again, we're focusing on the underserved group.

But what about encouraging an environment where players can say “this is how I want to play”? It’s not exactly like the competitive players are searching out the Dune-Themed desert deck to crush on turn 1 with Flash Hulk. cEDH players are from my experience don’t get enjoyment from comboing off against a bunch of non-cEDH players. You can do both, without alienating one group or the other. You actively choose not to, and as a result, 15% of the people who want to enjoy your format, don’t, and feel ignored by you.

We understand that any time we ban or unban anything, not everyone will like it. There's no way to make everyone happy with all things. We can point to the philosophy and say "This is why we made the decision," and hope that people trust that we truly are operating in the best interest of making the format the best it can be on its own terms.

You mistake most of the backlash from cEDH players as being unhappy about the Paradox Engine ban for the feeling like we are ignored as a demographic playing your format. Our desire to enjoy it is no less valid than the dune-deck. You owe it to your format to bring in and encourage players to have their definition of fun, while, discussing with their playgroups what those goals are within their own playgroups. You should let individual playgroups decide their own philosophies to govern themselves. You will end up with happier people in all aspects of Commander, and more people will have fun.

The idea we'd really like to offer you and have you give a great deal of consideration is that there are more ways to win at Commander than just beating the other three players at the table.

This sounds profound, but it's really nonsense. If you are conflating “win” with “have fun” then I agree. I think we all agree on this. The problem here is that cEDH players typically concede that cEDH is not for everyone and that there is more than one way to enjoy the format, and we encourage people to explore them. We are asking for the same respect.

[Jim Wolfie]

Just in case you don't want a text post. Literally same breakdown

[ClydeBankston]

I think the issue is that the banlist which you (and others on the RC) moderate is used for official tournaments. As the banlist is used for EDH tournaments in both LGS' and GPs which people pay for there is an expectation that people will bring high power levels. I'm not saying that you have to ban strictly for cEDH but, since as you said Flash/Hulk isn't played in casual, there is no harm in banning flash because nobody plays it casually. The problem with Pengine which you noted was that it was too powerful but really isn't unless you essentially built around it. This problem stems from people playing decks which are too powerful for their pod and not from an inherent problem with the card.

Edit: I believe that you should also have Sigi or Dan (or both) from the Lab Maniacs on the CAG so that we feel heard and actually represented because ATM comp players are knocked aside for playing how WE find the format fun.

[Jim Wolfie]

Sigi and Dan are the last people I want there. Like wweeeeeeenoooo full stop.

Jim from spike feeders is better

[benjameenbear]

[mention]Styrofoam[/mention] [mention]Jim Wolfie[/mention]

Very well said points (even if vicariously said, Jim Wolfie)!

[Zaraki]

That said, your voice has been heard.

Dear RC and Sheldon,

I think the root of problem is that cEDH is quiet a big community - 27k members in subreddit comparing to 80k of r/EDH. Nevertheless RC always states that you don’t want to take cEDH into any consideration, which is embarrassing.

We do not want separate ban list or separate RC. We just want some help from you.

The best example is the situation with Flash. I don’t think that Flash ban will affect casual EDH at all, but for a cEDH it would be a savior. cEDH crowd (and even some members of CAG!) constantly gives you feedback about Flash, but RC refuses to give any comments about it.

Please listen to the feedback from recent community poll and ban Flash. It would not harm the spirit of the format, and will make cEDH folks happy and engaged.

Best regards
cEDH nerd

[SkyL]

Fine, I'll bite. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume this thread was made with the Commander Climate Survey in mind, specifically the "How much of an influence do you think you have over the format?" question, which, as of this posting, 49% marked 1/10, 13.6% marked 2/10, 11.7% marked 3/10, for a total of 74.3% who voted 1 to 3. It shows that, even though there is no agreement on anything else in the survey, people who responded to the survey clearly feel that they have little to no influence over the rules or bans of the format.

As one of the people who voted 1 on that survey, I'll tell you exactly what's stopping the reversal of those statistics: it's the public perception of the EDH RC, the perception of it being a group of people who make rules/bans based on what they feel is fun or unfun. You could point to numerous examples of having asked people for their opinions on different sorts of platforms, but at the end of the day, it doesn't mean that there's any sort of consistent result or benefit out of that discourse. I am simply beholden to the idea of what's fun for a committee of people I've never met every time I play EDH, and there's nothing I can do about it, even if I hope otherwise.

So given that, I don't think there's anything you can do to get people to think that the RC values their opinions while you keep the governing EDH ideology that you have. It's simply in conflict. Changing rules or banning cards based on what's perceived to be feelings or opinions is never going to be as effective at having positive public impressions as changing things based on facts or data, because at the end of the day, nobody feels the same way about playing EDH.

[Sheldon]

Sigi and Dan are the last people I want there. Like wweeeeeeenoooo full stop.

Jim from spike feeders is better

I can't speak to your first sentence, but I had an enlightening and civil conversation with Jim earlier in the week. I would be happy to engage with him more in the future.

[xeroxedfool]

Try to put yourself in the place of the RC. They have a very tough job of trying to manage this hugely popular MTG format. There are many different factors to weigh and no one is ever going to be perfectly pleased. It is a never-ending, thankless task,

[braden]

I think the BEST thing you could do is an AMA on reddit. Head over to /r/EDH and just answer people’s questions (with the help of some moderation from the mod team) and help people know they are being heard.

/r/EDH is alarmingly toxic and frequently features an almost gleeful level of RC-bashing. One of the most-upvoted threads yesterday was entitled "Spit in the Face of the Spirit of the Format!" - no joke. Engaging with the community there might do more harm than good, especially as it has an extremely Spikey skew. It represents a subset of the community adequately enough, but it's in no way a good proxy for the wider Commander playerbase.

I think that ignoring them is worse. The community can and will get better, but if the RC has an issue with how many people feel they have no influence with the format, an AMA is the BIGGEST step.

I also did mention that mods would have to help. They would need to delete or ignore comments that were inappropriate for mature discussion.

[braden]

Jim from spike feeders is better

I can't speak to your first sentence, but I had an enlightening and civil conversation with Jim earlier in the week. I would be happy to engage with him more in the future.

Jim is one of the best of us. I and many others trust Jim to maturely represents the best wishes of the community. There will never be full agreement as to who should represent all of cEDH, but Jim is absolutely a great start.

[benjameenbear]

Agreed. In the brief conversations I had with him on Discord, he understands and appreciates the core philosophy of Commander as a format but is definitely a dedicated cEDH player.

I like the Laboratory Maniacs and The Spike Feeders as my cEDH content producers, so any interaction with them would be my recommendation, and Jim from The Spike Feeders is a little more accessible.

[Kajarak32]

First off, Sheldon (and other RC members), thank you for taking the time to do what you do. It is appreciated.

I think one issue that may also be contributing to the problem here is that cEDH and EDH are being treated like completely different things, different groups, and therefore treating those people playing them as different. The thing is, many cEDH players also play casual EDH. Probably near all of them in fact. So when the cEDH part of their fun is being ignored completely, you are not just alienating and hurting cEDH players, but many people who play casually as well.

Flash is not a card I've ever seen played, have ever wanted to play with, or really ever wish to see played. It isn't big, splashy, or interesting, and doesn't scream "commander" when I read it. If banning such a card would improve the play experience to more EDH and cEDH players alike (because they are the same), then why not do it?

I'm not saying that is all that should be done (just banning one card), but allowing cEDH players to actually feel like they aren't something completely separate or cancerous to our format is important. Please allow them more agency and work with them more about how you may be able to improve their play experience as long as it will not negatively impact the EDH as a whole.

[cryogen]

There is a fine line that you walk as the RC, even with the CAG to support you and your decision making. With the growing, and increasingly vocal, subset of Commander players that are of a cEDH mindset you will ALWAYS receive backlash, it seems, in regards to the decisions that you make and the mindset you have. I think @Rx-18-67 has a great point that while you say that you want to include the cEDH audience in the format you've created you also actively try to maintain the stance that you want the spirit of the format to override any and all other concerns and make comments that are at odds with the inclusive attitude you're trying to maintain.

Rightly so! This format was initially designed and intended as a format where cards like the OG Elder Dragons would actually get play time instead of rotting in a card collection somewhere. Where sweet interactions and an immersive experience was the sole object of the game and you could walk away really feeling like you were an almighty Planeswalker fighting against a fellow Planeswalker with terrifying creatures and epic spells. There is an inherent ability for MTG to be a vicarious way to experience one's imagination, and I 5,000% support this and endorse it. It is, truly, the way I think MTG ought to be experienced for any player at least once in their life. Some people approach MTG from a strictly gaming perspective, but they are missing out on the most important quality that I think Garfield intended for his game.

But my perception, as the primary liaison between the cEDH crowd and MTGSal/MTGNexus, is that the Commander format has reached a crossroads and you need to actively embrace it and recognize it. There is a growing population of competitively minded players that love Commander for the original reasons but have a different approach to it entirely, one that I believe is at odds with the core philosophy you've explained, reiterated, and repeated.

So, and this is solely my opinion, I think it's time to recognize the growing cEDH community and create a separate cEDH type Commander format.

I think that this will solve two things for you:

• 1) By advocating and establishing cEDH as a data-driven format, you will encourage people to contribute real and effective data to make banlist decisions on. There are a significant number of cEDH content creators on the internet and they DO have real and effective data that could be used to make ban decisions and philosophy decisions. There IS an established meta-game that is quantifiable and expected if you're sitting down for a cEDH game already. This also opens up the opportunity for you to create a new type of format that could be tracked and, perhaps in the future, recognized as an official Tournament format . This potential is particularly attractive to me and the communities I'm a part of since we already play with a tournament mindset.
• It will deflect any and all complaints that you receive about the banlist and the battlecruiser type of mentality that you rightly champion. Tell them to be a cEDH player and check out the separate cEDH banlist, and I think that you can move on past the complaint or argument in a mutually beneficial way.

I get that this kind of decision is antithetical to what you created and championed for Commander. But, let's face it, the format has evolved and adapted into arguably THE most popular MTG format of all time and its scope is now beyond what you probably envisioned. And the decisions that you make, and receive flak for on the internet, are going to continue to happen by the significantly more vocal competitive subset of Commander players.

As shameless self-promotion, I personally would be 100% happy to champion, moderate, and maintain a cEDH Commander format if this idea carries merit with you, the RC, and the CAG.

Interesting nugget of history, Kevin D. of the Duel Commander rules committee was originally on the Commander Rules Committee years ago and then left to pursue 1v1. So it is absolutely possible to create an offshoot format with some legitimacy, but it's pretty hard.

[ElectricTuba]

I think this conversation would be seen very differently if instead of thinking of cEDH as its own format, it is simply seen as Commander at a very high power level.

I believe the vast majority of cEDH players play cEDH for the same reasons people play Commander - a casual, multiplayer game type. The only difference is that one group wants to play with very powerful cards they can't play in other formats, or love trying to find optimal lines in extremely complex and interactive games.

This version of fun is no more or less fun than 80 turn games of battlecruiser magic, but cEDH players are constantly told that our way to play is wrong, worse, or degenerate. People loving max power decks doesn't mean we want to invade low power groups... Where's the fun in beating Ladies Looking Left with shuffle hulk?

[Rumpy5897]

Me voting 1 in the poll was not bitter in the slightest. I'm just one dude, slinging EDH with some permutation of a pool of five other guys, my perspective is admittedly limited and my authority is nonexistent. I may think I understand how this format works, I may believe that Paradox Engine is the most needlessly feared card in history, but then I look at the poll results and see people wanting to unban Prophet of Kruphix. I remember how egregious that card was, maybe my Paradox Engine perception is just as biased? The RC has been doing a solid job with the format over the years, closing weird rules loopholes like Zedruu's Celestial Dawn donations or the whole tuck thing, and if the price we have to pay for it are a couple questionable things on the banlist (Biorhythm? Coalition Victory? Gifts Ungiven? Recurring Nightmare?) then so be it.

[benjameenbear]

I think this conversation would be seen very differently if instead of thinking of cEDH as its own format, it is simply seen as Commander at a very high power level.

I believe the vast majority of cEDH players play cEDH for the same reasons people play Commander - a casual, multiplayer game type. The only difference is that one group wants to play with very powerful cards they can't play in other formats, or love trying to find optimal lines in extremely complex and interactive games.

This version of fun is no more or less fun than 80 turn games of battlecruiser magic, but cEDH players are constantly told that our way to play is wrong, worse, or degenerate. People loving max power decks doesn't mean we want to invade low power groups... Where's the fun in beating Ladies Looking Left with shuffle hulk?

Sadly, it seems that your second paragraph is cause for alienation in real life and by the RC. Max Power level rationalization is against the core philosophy, as the RC and CAG have presented it, if I'm understanding their intentions correctly.

It's why I suggested splitting the format. While undesirable, as [mention]Jim Wolfie[/mention] has shown via reddit, it seems to me to be the most effective way to address the concerns of the very vocal cEDH minority without sabotaging the original intent of Commander as a format. I personally don't see a way to happily include both groups without making another banning update.

[mention]cryogen[/mention]
It's an interesting idea that I think has merit and would probably get a lot of support online should it receive the RC and CAG's formal blessing. Perhaps Rachel Agnes can spearhead the cEDH subset since she actively plays Legacy and Vintage? I dunno.

[TheTuna]

I think this conversation would be seen very differently if instead of thinking of cEDH as its own format, it is simply seen as Commander at a very high power level.

I believe the vast majority of cEDH players play cEDH for the same reasons people play Commander - a casual, multiplayer game type. The only difference is that one group wants to play with very powerful cards they can't play in other formats, or love trying to find optimal lines in extremely complex and interactive games.

This version of fun is no more or less fun than 80 turn games of battlecruiser magic, but cEDH players are constantly told that our way to play is wrong, worse, or degenerate. People loving max power decks doesn't mean we want to invade low power groups... Where's the fun in beating Ladies Looking Left with shuffle hulk?

I think the crux of the issue is that there are lots of players out there who love crushing casual games with high/max power decks, and if you put one of those people in a game with three casual decks at a LGS, they can and will ruin the game for everyone else. As Sheldon himself has said, the cEDH decks can tyrannize lower power-level games if they leak, but the lower power-level decks can't do the reverse, which creates a power imbalance with a magnetic pull towards the cEDH end of the spectrum in order to survive.

Frankly, I do think splitting the format and codifying cEDH as its own entity makes a lot of sense.

[HoffOccultist]

Hello Sheldon.

First off, thanks for taking the time to reach out to get some feedback. I think one of the shortcomings of the RC, which you have admitted yourself in the creation of the CAG, is somewhat poor communication, and this is another step in improving that. I do find it interesting you chose to do so here exclusively on a relatively new website rather than spreading it out via other social media (reddit, facebook, twitter, all of 'em), but that's neither here nor there.

My response here comes from the perspective of having played EDH for over a decade, running the gauntlet from pretty casual piles of tossed together cards to tuned cEDH decks. I enjoy playing more casually (though admittedly my local group probably plays at a higher level than many, even casually), as well as playing competitively--I actually help set-up a monthly cEDH meet-up for people to play in paper in my home state.

One thing that I really appreciate about the RC is that you take a relatively conservative approach to banning. I think if you were more heavy-handed, the format would not have grown to the heights it has. And as much as I am sad about Paradox Engine, it's understandable why it went (I also don't think the Iona ban is a net negative, and the Painter Servant unban seems like a wash at worst). Overall, I believe the ban list is curated pretty well. Don't get me wrong, I'd make some changes. Personally I think Flash going would be a positive to the format overall because I've never seen it used to do positive things (in casual or competitive), and I think a few things could be unbanned without issue (Coalition Victory, Biorhythm, Recurring Nightmare), but overall the ban list is good. What could help continue with this is simply a run-down of the issues that come up in discussion with the card, and a brief "pro/con" to banning it--I imagine this is something that already happens behind the scenes with the RC/CAG, and it might help to make those discussions public (not necessarily calling out anyone by name, but just the content) in the explanations of why something had to go.

I think the issues really arise from the combination of the conservative nature of the ban list with the somewhat poor communication from the RC. With this most recent banning it seems like a lot of the feedback has been relatively split between happy and sad to see Engine go, and the Iona and Painter's Servant changes seem to have been met relatively well. But when it's been a 2.5 year gap since the last ban, any change is going to be met with some backlash--that's just going to happen with the "slow and steady" nature of this ban list. And that alone isn't a reason to change the banlist management. What does need to change is the communication. While EDH is never going to have statistics to explain why something is or isn't banned that can be quoted like a WotC ban announcement, the explanations for a ban could stand to be a little longer. I know the guidelines in the Philosophy Document are just guidelines, but it might help to explain why a certain card passed the threshold (and maybe compare to another that did not). With a better explanation, I think people might be more willing to accept the changes--but there will be consternation regardless.

With communication, I also think you should consider the messaging put out by the RC--and specifically some of the messaging you individually put out. When you post things like the Facebook conversation about combos being too prevalent or too quick, it gives a lot of players pause. My playgroups all generally agree that games need to end, and the rules currently support combos as being the best way to do that. It's fine if you and your playgroups enjoy longer games, but most of the people I play with feel like an hour or so is long enough, and sometimes a combo is needed to end the game. Likewise, when you posted that particular message, it felt like you were somewhat out of touch with the nature of Magic as a whole--with each new card that gets printed, more possibilities open up for EDH, and some of them are going to push the envelope. And that's ok! That's what we love about EDH! I'm so glad my own playstyle has evolved beyond what I started with in EDH as my group has changed and adapted to new cards, and it's made me a better Magic player and better person to do so. But seeing something that came across as dismissive of a playstyle different than your own--even if that wasn't your intention to be dismissive--was a little alarming. Even more so when some of the comments on that particular note were even more out of the ordinary with regard to the current EDH rules--and comments from people who I know have the potential to have your ear. Things that would, frankly, make EDH no longer the type of Magic so many of us love.

I think Rule 0 is a great start. People need to communicate better with their groups. I have had my group invite me to play cEDH decks against them to see if their new deck matches up at all. I've played a deck at a lower power than the group because I've been asked to bring it down a lot. Most of the time we agree on what the level is without any hitches at all. But that doesn't work for everyone. It doesn't work for GPs, where players are potentially paying a decent chunk of money to play a lot of EDH. It doesn't work for whomever when they come to a new LGS for the first time. And that's where the ban list has to continue to be carefully curated, and potentially adjusted so that Joe Schmoe the Shark doesn't come crash an EDH FNM for a couple promos and ruin everyone's night. I don't want to see further splintering of the casual and competitive EDH players, because at the end of the day we all love playing EDH, we just get the most out of it in different ways. And that's a good thing for the format overall. I'll end my point with a tortured analogy. Some people prefer chocolate ice cream, others vanilla, and still others like strawberry. It's fine to like them separate, but if all ice cream were just one flavor, only a certain group would be happy. EDH is our ice cream shop, where we all can come in, find the flavor we like, and then enjoy it with other people. Don't limit the ice cream shop to only selling vanilla and vanilla-related accessories.

As a closing note, I'd like to specifically highlight what I see as amazing community outreach by Shivam Bhatt on twitter. While I'm sure that the other CAG members and RC members all speak with lots of commander players, I haven't seen any one of them other than Shivam engage in difficult conversations with as wide a variety of people as he does. I don't always agree with what he says, and I think he and I likely have very very different playstyles driving what we find to be fun, but his openness to communication is what the RC/CAG needs way way more of. And honestly, I think he ends up getting dumped on a lot by people because the other RC/CAG members aren't engaging as well, so he ends up taking extra flack when he's really, in my opinion, a shining star of what the CAG should be all about.

I'd also like to extend my best wishes toward your health, as well.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[cryogen]

So, as the guy who made the survey (and in case anyone was wondering, I had zero input from anyone on the RC or CAG in making it, the idea and questions were all my own), I'd like to clarify that question which everyone responded with a 1.

The intent of the question tries to get to the heart of what Sheldon is asking, and would have been better worded like "how much do you feel your voice is heard by the rules Committee?" Unfortunately, as written I think there is a nonzero chance that taken literally, the correct answer IS to score a 1, unless your are one of the 10 RC/CAG members, or quite possibly in WotC R&D.

My suspicion is that the low score was definitely at least in part to players feeling like many of you have vocalized, but there should be at least some level of skepticism as to the validity of that answer.

[liquidpixel]

My biggest issue with the RC is their philosophy on curated banlists. I play at a lot of stores and in a lot of different groups (note: at widely varying power levels) and house-rules don't really function there. I can't be expected to take a handful of sideboard cards with me, or even an entirely separate deck, and sit for 10 minutes rebuilding my deck at every table I play just to adhere to the current group's curated list. This format has grown beyond 60-card kitchen table casual as the most popular format in the game. People need to have a universal foundation on what is allowed and not allowed.

My second biggest issue is their definition of "fun". Fun is a human byproduct of the game. We play games to have fun, but no game explicitly puts "make sure you're having fun" in their rulebooks. It seems Commander is trying to be the first game which writes that into the rules. Fun can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. Some people are psychopaths and have fun torturing people. Maybe their idea of fun isn't popular (or legal) but nobody really has the power to enforce that they have fun in other ways. My point is some people (like me) have fun competing and Commander has given us a medium where we can compete in a multi-player environment. Telling us "Commander isn't a competitive format" is a logical fallacy. Commander is a game and all games have an end; in Magic the ending is when someone is declared the winner. A game with a winner and a loser can be broken down into "an event in which competition takes place to determine an outcome". You CANNOT enforce a "no-competition" policy in a game which has competition at its core! People are going to compete at any given power level from Craw Worm to Doomsday otherwise the "game" becomes show and tell.

That's my $0.02, I don't really have an issue with the banlist per se because in a high power setting I will always try to play the most optimal cards I'm allowed and can afford and in a low power setting I have an entire Vintage legal pool with which to be creative, but I feel ignored because the RC seems very narrow minded and I'd like them to reconsider their philosophies on what makes this format the best in the game.

[Segrid]

Hello Sheldon! Id like to thank you for hosting this, and allowing us direct communication with you. Showing how imvested you are into the playerbase speaks volumes of your devotion for this format. Thank you!

There are a couple ways you could improve communication to your playerbase.

Firstly, the need for statistics in the reasoning behind bannings and unbannings. There is a lot of talk about "Sheldon's playgroup doesn't like this so he banned it yadda yadda yadda" but obviously the RC isnt your playgroup, and your group isnt the only people making decisions. To improve communication between RC and the playerbase, a more in depth look at the reasoning for card bans or rule changes need to occur. Research needs to happen for people to truly believe something is justified. One quote Im just thinking of Ive heard is "Whenever WoTC makes a banning announcement, the one thing I've never questioned was the validity. With the RC, I can't say the same." Or something to that degree. You need to show there was more thought than "This card seems unfun to me and a select number of people im talking to, so lets ban it." Of course that probably isnt how it goes, but there is a misconception that it is.

Id like to start off this next point by repeating the reason for this post: for people who dont believe their voice is heard, to be heard. Whos voice is silenced above all others in this format than the competitive playerbase? If you truly want all voices to be heard, then you will listen to the competitive playerbase. They are the people who try and break your format - they are your play testers. They are the people who know exactly how broken things can be. If you ignore them, you are ignoring crucial information on what cards can be banned. Flash is the highest percent card that people believe should be banned, as shown on the MTGNexus poll. In the Commander Summit, the competitive EDH influencers said Flash was the problem card. Perhaps if there were statistics used in the reasoning behind the RC, the RC would have known that Flash was a problem card. And if you do use statistics, please let us know how you attain them.

In summary, please use statistics in your decision making, so the RC is more informed about the general playerbase's needs. With this, listen to the competitive playerbase - they are the ones who know what needs changing above all else. Cards that break the format should be banned, not just cards that can be percieved as unfun by some.

Also, and this is kind of off topic, but I believe the cEDH community shouldnt be split from the normal EDH community. If we could look past our play differences, and communicate the power level of our decks better to allow for competitive players to use less powerful decks when with more casually minded decks.

[WildWooloo]

The concept of tournament commander is a topic that the rules committee needs to address. Like Clydebankston stated, the overwhelming majority of commander tournaments run on the ban list set by the rules committee. As long as these tournaments do have prizes and cost money to join, players are going to attempt to build their decks and try their best to win, in short be competitive. Ironically, the ban list utilized is poorly adapted for regulating this tournament play and nobody is addressing why tournaments are continuing to utilize a ban list that is "not seek(ing) to regulate competitive play."

The reason for this is simple though. Commander has grown to be more than what the rule's committee has set it out to be, but in order for it to stay as one format, people need an unified set of rules and ban list. You can argue rule zero in commander all you want, but in order for their to be organized tournaments at Magic Fests, everyone has to follow the ban list and rules set by the rule's committee.

Because of this, even if the rules committee writes a declaration that they will not regulate the ban list for competitive play, for the stability of the format, the rules committee actually does have an obligation to regulate tournament play.

The rules committee may claim that they are not responsible for the actions of tournament organizers choosing to follow their ban list, but that would be quite irresponsible.

Ultimately, these events at Magic Fests, Cons and the like are all extremely popular showing evidence that the format is moving to be more competitive or at least a competitive side of the format does exist, yet the philosophy of the rules committee continues to claim that Commander does not want to be a competitive format. As long as the rules committee continues to make decisions on behalf of the player base, they should be held accountable to representing the player base. If the format is evolving, then perhaps then rules committee should evolve as well.

Personally, I believe that creating the commander rules advisory was a step in the right direction, however, it seems to make no sense to not just simply add them to the rules committee (assuming that members of the advisory willingly accept such a responsibility). This gives the impression that the rules committee doesn't want to actually increase the amount of viewpoints, have little faith in their advisory choices and/or are merely doing a PR stunt. The closed appearance of the rules committee is further reinforced by the fact that in the history of the rules committee, it appears that the number of members has not grown to match the growing player base, but instead may have even shrunk from five members to four members.

I'd like to conclude by reiterating the idea that we are all commander players. We play this format because we love this format. And even if you perform actions that threaten to fracture the community, we will continue to play this format, not because we love the rule's committee's philosophy of the format, but because we love the format that is more than just what rule's committee's philosophy entails and don't wish to see it fall to pieces. Please do not abuse our love of this game.

[ElectricTuba]

I think the crux of the issue is that there are lots of players out there who love crushing casual games with high/max power decks, and if you put one of those people in a game with three casual decks at a LGS, they can and will ruin the game for everyone else. As Sheldon himself has said, the cEDH decks can tyrannize lower power-level games if they leak, but the lower power-level decks can't do the reverse, which creates a power imbalance with a magnetic pull towards the cEDH end of the spectrum in order to survive.

Frankly, I do think splitting the format and codifying cEDH as its own entity makes a lot of sense.

These people will exist no matter how many format splits there are. cEDH players look down on pubstompers just as much as casual players, they make us all look bad even if they vast majority of people abhor that kind of game. Pubstomping is a people problem, not a deck problem. Split the format, and jerks will just pubstomp with the new best "regular" edh deck.